The CODOH Revisionist Forum

If I saw a testimony like that, I would not immediately think this is 'off brand'. As I just told you, even for me, right now, as somebody very familiar with the material, an instance of actual resettlement hardly precludes a genocidal campaign. We know some Hungarian Jews were allowed to bring their families with them to work camps. I would however think it was 'off brand' if I knew the Holocaust was fake. This is why you need a conspiracy. It's unbelievably naive to think people would act this way without a strong rationale.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed May 14, 2025 12:18 am
I think this is just the beginning actually, if there are no coercive measures being exerted on the hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect witnesses to resettlement.

You need for example people monitoring publishers, newspapers, media outlets, to prevent anyone from publishing, going to the press, being interviewed. Not only that these people have to not only be monitoring but have executive control, enough to kill stories if they arise. Speak in detail as to how the hoaxers managed to pull off this aspect for many decades.

AI analysis of this thread so far, I fully endorse all qualitative comments.

Your entire premise for this response above is dead-wrong. You do not need the media outlets, academia, etc. to be "in on it" at all, although you can be sure the media is not an issue, given it's overwhelmingly Jewish (at the highest level), and other relevant institutions not far off.

Even if all of the world's researchers, journalists, etc., were to suddenly have started trying their darndest in the 1980s (which we know for a fact is when research into AR camps and Jews sent through/into them only began in earnest), this would not be sufficient (not remotely) to overcome the effects of an Iron Curtain and global superpowers manipulating demographic data and reporting to suit their agendas.

TL;DR: False premise, try again.

So what happens when Esther tries to get her manuscript published? She sends it to publishers in Israel, who like me, fully believe in the Holocaust. They have published memoirs about ghetto experiences and labor camp experiences. What is the reaction?

bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed May 14, 2025 12:28 am Assuming no suppression, the amount of information produced for Jews living in ghettos gives us some kind of a rough baseline for how much we could expect about resettlement. Most of those ghettoized Jews went into the USSR btw,

AI describe the corpus

No thanks, not interested in your AI slop. You need to at least balance your AI usage with your own original ideas, bombsaway. You're around 60/40 or even 70/30 here, favoring AI. Do better.

As for your claim that documentation of ghettos should align with documentation of evacuated Jews, you're ignorant of the Yizkor books and the centralized effort it entailed to 'preserve the memory' specifically of ghettos and the Jewish communities preceding them (this is what spawned most of the ghetto memoirs. Of course, given the staggering amount of obvious embellishments, hyperbole, and general absurdities throughout these texts (and other Jewish patterns informing our broader interpretation), there is more reason to suspect this effort was coordinated to manipulate history -- not record it accurately. The Yizkor effort was Jews "getting their story straight" postwar. This means exaggerating the original sizes and histories of certain communities, exaggerating the scale of atrocities observed, and overall to harmonize 'survivor' accounts to align with Allied narratives of 'extermination', as seen at Nuremberg/etc., and to advance political and financial goals like reparations and Zionism.

Such centralized efforts by the wide-reaching postwar Jewish organizations would have little difficulty making modest and convenient omissions, recognizing their sacrosanct '6 million' figure desperately needed to be upheld for purposes of establishing their yearned-for Jewish state but, most of all, ensuring their common global 'denazification' and revenge effort against Germans in conjunction with Allied initiatives would achieve success.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed May 14, 2025 5:30 am So what happens when Esther tries to get her manuscript published? She sends it to publishers in Israel, who like me, fully believe in the Holocaust. They have published memoirs about ghetto experiences and labor camp experiences. What is the reaction?

Well that would depend on what her manuscript says, wouldn't it? What did she say her travels were? Was she in Poland? Did they put her on a train? Were there windows on the train? How many hours did she travel? How many stops? Where did she end up? Were there signs? Did the friendly Nazi conductor announce to her what her places of arrival were? How well does she remember this 40, 50, 70 years later?

For the vast majority of Jews telling their stories, you have it backwards -- it is centralized Jewish organizations reaching out to 'survivors' for their stories, which allows a degree of coordination (filtering, editing, coaching or even 'gaslighting') on how and whether these testimonies are considered or ultimately presented/published.

You're also misrepresenting how significant such memoirs/manuscripts being missing actually is. Recall that some 99.998% of gulag survivors did not write memoirs/manuscripts nor give testimony of any kind. There is an increased testimony-gathering effort in the 'Holocaust' however this is exclusively due to the efforts of the aforementioned, centralized [Jewish] organizations.

You also leave out that Jews evacuated East undoubtedly had a lower average survival rate (due to everything from disease, exposure, etc. -- during and after the war), likely much lower than Jews in other camps/ghettos as well as that of Soviet prisoners sent to gulags. Hence, we adjust expectations further.

Additionally, Jews as a collective are heavily incentivized to conform to a common narrative. This raises lots of questions.

Altogether, we should expect that the proportion of evacuated Jews who would tell their story of this journey to the far East (assuming they would even know enough to 'expose' it as such, which seems unlikely) should be even less than the proportion of gulag survivors who tell their stories. For gulag testimony rates for unsolicited memoirs, that's about 0.005% (using our earlier accounting and adjusting conservatively downward for non-solicitation). With that same rate for evacuation survivors, we're looking at (500,000 x 0.005% = ) 25

Thus, the premise of your expectation that "out of hundreds of thousands of Jews surviving eastward evacuation, we should expect X amount of testimonies" is flawed -- the denominator is closer to twenty-five (25) or less, not "hundreds of thousands". But then we have to add the unique Jewish organizational structures, collective ambitions, etc., already discussed, which can easily account for a reduction of 25 or more.

[EDIT for clarity: the point is that 25 should be the benchmark for our expectation -- to highlight "hundreds of thousands" is misleading, implying a greater number or proportion of "missing" testimonies]

Now, if you want to include the solicited testimony, then we need to have that conversation about whether or not Jewish organizations are objective and unbiased collectors of information which serves (or challenges) Jewish interests. But even with this unadjusted your denominator doesn't go above 100.

And as implied in my first paragraph: Esther likely doesn't have a clue where she went, regardless.

How were millions of Jews persuaded to play dead at the end of the war and then not claim from the compensation money?

bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed May 14, 2025 2:08 am
These "trinkets" have nothing to do with Jews, so assuming they are fabrications, you've proven the hoaxing of a mass historical event probably less than T4 gassings prove Jews were gassed. Off topic anyway, do a comparison in another thread with Stubble if you wish.

You are not in a position to make a demand, you assume that we believe in a conspiracy, so tell Eisenhower this too, who was in a position to know much more than you or I, there is no point in trying to distort non-Jewish atrocities with Jewish ones, since there were no exclusive camps for any group.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Wed May 14, 2025 1:27 am 1. “The media are overwhelmingly Jewish … research only began in earnest in the 1980s … an Iron Curtain plus ‘global super-powers manipulating demographic data’ explains the gap.”

The Soviet “Iron Curtain” can’t account for the silence inside Western-controlled sources that were never behind that curtain:

UNRRA / IRO case-files (Bad Arolsen, Germany, open since 1949)

Joint Distribution Committee emigration dossiers (New York, open since the 1970s)

Shoah Foundation interviews taken in Canada, the US, Australia, South Africa and Western Europe during the 1990s.
None of those repositories shows so much as a single liberated “German resettlement camp in Russia.” You need a mechanism that bridges both blocs, not one that stops at the Soviet border.

Callafangers wrote: 2. “Yizkor books and other memoirs exist because of a post-war Jewish effort to ‘get the story straight’; the same organisations could omit the east-bound story.”

Yizkor volumes were an anarchic grass-roots project. Some were printed by tiny landsmanschaften in Brooklyn, others by kibbutz collectives in Israel, still others by socialist Bundists in Paris. Hundreds were vanity-published on shoestring budgets. The texts contradict each other on dates, spellings, even pre-war population size—proof that no central commission harmonised their contents. If a single survivor community near Minsk or Vyatka had existed, its landsmanschaft would proudly have produced a memorial book (and begged for restitution on the back cover). None did.

Callafangers wrote: 3. “Because only 0.005 % of gulag survivors wrote unsolicited memoirs, we should expect 25 or fewer east-evacuation memoirs; the absence of 25 is trivial.”

Two problems with that arithmetic:

The gulag figure you quote (16 memoirs ⇒ 0.005 %) is off by a factor of fifty; Memorial’s 2003 bibliography alone lists 700 + gulag memoirs. Using 700/16 million gives 0.004 %—still tiny but not vanishing. Apply 0.004 % to 500 000 alleged resettled Jews and you expect two hundred memoirs, not twenty-five.

Inflation by solicitation matters. The Shoah Foundation did not cold-call only ghetto survivors; it chased every living Jew with a wartime story. If 500 000 Polish Jews were alive in post-war Russia, roughly 50 000 made aliyah. Foundation field-teams blanketed Israel between 1994-2000. A random-hit rate of just 5 % would yield 2 500 video testimonies describing German camps in the Soviet interior. Result on the VHA database: zero.

Callafangers wrote: 4. “Centralised Jewish organisations can coach, edit or gaslight testimonies; therefore even 25 manuscripts could be removed.”

To delete a living person’s entire life story you must:

Bind every acquisitions editor in Hebrew, Yiddish, English, Polish, Russian, German and French presses.

Police vanity presses and self-publishers (Amazon KDP, Lulu) after 2000.

Track and digitally erase PDFs uploaded to Archive.org or plain HTML memoirs posted on 1990s GeoCities sites.

Purge stray “I was east of Smolensk” references from Pages of Testimony submitted directly by families (no editors involved).

We have examples that slipped past all editorial filters—survivors who swear they watched soap made of human fat or saw electric conveyor-belt executions—yet not a single survivor remembers “the Vyatka colony.” Editorial gas-lighting cannot be 100 % selective on one motif only.

Nessie wrote: “How were millions of Jews persuaded to play dead and not claim the compensation money?”

Precisely. Bundesentschädigung pensions and later Article-2 payments are public-record: ≈ 620 000 Jewish claimants since 1954. If another million Jews liberated from German camps lived on Soviet soil (or emigrated to Israel in the 1970s-90s), Claims Conference lawyers would be beating down their doors; the Conference’s entire raison d’être is to collect more names, not fewer. The compensation rolls stopped growing because no further pool of survivors materialized.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Wed May 14, 2025 7:47 am And as implied in my first paragraph: Esther likely doesn't have a clue where she went, regardless.

Glad you made a cursory attempt to answer this but yeah this shows the depths of naivete and delusion we're working with. Upon liberation (assuming the Germans kept the Jews in the dark about location - this wasn't the case - they were told they were being sent into Russia) by Soviets she wouldn't find out she was being kept somewhere in the USSR? You are in la la land.

bombsaway wrote:The Soviet “Iron Curtain” can’t account for the silence inside Western-controlled sources that were never behind that curtain:

UNRRA / IRO case-files (Bad Arolsen, Germany, open since 1949)

Joint Distribution Committee emigration dossiers (New York, open since the 1970s)

Shoah Foundation interviews taken in Canada, the US, Australia, South Africa and Western Europe during the 1990s.
None of those repositories shows so much as a single liberated “German resettlement camp in Russia.” You need a mechanism that bridges both blocs, not one that stops at the Soviet border.

bombsaway, you're missing the forest for the trees. The Iron Curtain is a chokehold on information flow, especially in the immediate postwar chaos. UNRRA/IRON files and JDC dossiers rely heavily on what survivors reported or what Soviet authorities allowed to trickle out. If Jews evacuated eastward are under Soviet control -- whether in gulags, remote settlements, or just lost in the shuffle of millions displaced -- they're not showing up in Western records unless the Soviets want them to. And they didn’t. Add to that the Allies’ postwar agenda to pin everything on Germany with a unified 'extermination' narrative and there’s zero incentive to dig for “resettled” stories that muddy the waters. The mechanism isn’t some grand conspiracy spanning blocs; it’s shared interests -- Soviets hiding their own messes, Allies pushing their propaganda, and Jewish orgs curating victimhood for political capital. No "bridge" needed; just overlapping motives and a black hole of data.

bombsaway wrote:Yizkor volumes were an anarchic grass-roots project. Some were printed by tiny landsmanschaften in Brooklyn, others by kibbutz collectives in Israel, still others by socialist Bundists in Paris. Hundreds were vanity-published on shoestring budgets. The texts contradict each other on dates, spellings, even pre-war population size -- proof that no central commission harmonised their contents. If a single survivor community near Minsk or Vyatka had existed, its landsmanschaft would proudly have produced a memorial book (and begged for restitution on the back cover). None did.

You’re romanticizing the Yizkor books as some pure, untainted folk effort. Yes, they were often small-scale, but they weren’t free of influence. Major Jewish organizations post-war -- e.g. World Jewish Congress or early Zionist groups -- provided funding, distribution, and editorial guidance to many of these projects, even if indirectly. Contradictions in details don’t mean lack of coordination; they mean the harmonization was on the big picture -- loss, victimhood, and “extermination” -- not minutiae. A resettlement community in Minsk or Vyatka wouldn’t get a Yizkor if it didn’t fit the narrative being cultivated for reparations and Israel’s founding. Plus, survivors from such areas, if they existed, were likely still under Soviet grip or too fragmented to organize. Your “proud landsmanschaft” fantasy ignores the reality of suppression (and disarray).

bombsaway wrote:Two problems with that arithmetic:

The gulag figure you quote (16 memoirs ⇒ 0.005 %) is off by a factor of fifty; Memorial’s 2003 bibliography alone lists 700 + gulag memoirs. Using 700/16 million gives 0.004 %—still tiny but not vanishing. Apply 0.004 % to 500 000 alleged resettled Jews and you expect two hundred memoirs, not twenty-five.

Inflation by solicitation matters. The Shoah Foundation did not cold-call only ghetto survivors; it chased every living Jew with a wartime story. If 500 000 Polish Jews were alive in post-war Russia, roughly 50 000 made aliyah. Foundation field-teams blanketed Israel between 1994-2000. A random-hit rate of just 5 % would yield 2 500 video testimonies describing German camps in the Soviet interior. Result on the VHA database: zero.

Nice try with the number games, but you’re still inflating expectations and flubbing basic math . First, I never based my 0.005% on just 16 memoirs; I adjusted earlier figures to focus on unsolicited testimony, conservatively estimating around 0.005% as a benchmark for organic storytelling rates. Your “corrected” 700 gulag memoirs over 16 million still yields a tiny 0.004% -- barely a blip, and still not far off my point. But then you botch the calculation: 500,000 x 0.004% isn’t “200 memoirs”; it’s 20. So the denominator goes down. Adjust further for Jewish collective incentives to align with a victimhood narrative, lower survival rates in harsh eastward evacuations, and Soviet censorship, and even your inflated expectation collapses well below the 10-20 range, essentially vanished.

As for Shoah Foundation solicitation, you dodge my core point: centralized outreach enables filtering. They’re not “chasing every Jew”; they’re curating stories that fit. A 5% hit rate assumes random sampling and zero bias -- laughable when Yad Vashem and similar groups have an evidently vested interest in a singular genocide tale. Zero VHA hits for “Soviet interior camps” reflects narrative control and the tiny fraction of ‘survivors’ actually interviewed (50+ years later) likely being clueless about their own locations, or otherwise motivated/incentivized/misled to speak along certain lines.

bombsaway wrote:To delete a living person’s entire life story you must:

Bind every acquisitions editor in Hebrew, Yiddish, English, Polish, Russian, German and French presses.

Police vanity presses and self-publishers (Amazon KDP, Lulu) after 2000.

Track and digitally erase PDFs uploaded to Archive.org or plain HTML memoirs posted on 1990s GeoCities sites.

Purge stray “I was east of Smolensk” references from Pages of Testimony submitted directly by families (no editors involved).

We have examples that slipped past all editorial filters—survivors who swear they watched soap made of human fat or saw electric conveyor-belt executions—yet not a single survivor remembers “the Vyatka colony.” Editorial gas-lighting cannot be 100 % selective on one motif only.

You’re straw-manning hard here. I never said every editor or platform needs to be “bound” or policed (nor that we are “deleting lives”; though nice attempt at affirming the consequent and emotional appeal). Most survivors don’t even know where they were -- sealed trains, obscured destinations, wartime confusion. No need to “erase PDFs” when the story never gets written. And when it does, the publishing world -- especially in Israel or Jewish-heavy Western circles – self-selects against narratives that clash with the sacrosanct Holocaust story. Our estimates show they’d only have a tiny handful at most to have to weed out; and even less if they knew something we don't about survival rates of the ‘survivor’ group in question (perhaps explaining why Jewish organizations got a sudden booming interest in testimony-mining in the 80s-90s). Your soap and conveyor-belt examples prove my point: absurdities get through because they amplify victimhood, while a mundane “resettlement” tale risks diluting it. It’s not 100% selective gaslighting; it’s cultural and institutional bias doing the heavy lifting. No conspiracy of “digital erasure” needed -- just disinterest and disincentive.

bombsaway wrote:Precisely. Bundesentschädigung pensions and later Article-2 payments are public-record: ≈ 620 000 Jewish claimants since 1954. If another million Jews liberated from German camps lived on Soviet soil (or emigrated to Israel in the 1970s-90s), Claims Conference lawyers would be beating down their doors; the Conference’s entire raison d’être is to collect more names, not fewer. The compensation rolls stopped growing because no further pool of survivors materialized.

Wrong again. The Claims Conference isn’t some neutral truth-seeker “beating down doors” for every Jew. Their mission hinges on a specific victimhood narrative -- genocide, not resettlement. A million Jews on Soviet soil, if they existed, are either dead, suppressed, or uninterested in claiming when it risks clashing with the established story. Plus, Soviet-era Jews emigrating in the ‘70s-’90s aren’t rushing to advertise wartime “resettlement” under Germans if it means bureaucratic scrutiny or social ostracism in Israel. Compensation rolls stopping isn’t proof no survivors exist; it’s proof the system prioritizes a certain type of survivor story. You’re blind to incentives.

bombsaway wrote:Glad you made a cursory attempt to answer this but yeah this shows the depths of naivete and delusion we're working with. Upon liberation (assuming the Germans kept the Jews in the dark about location - this wasn't the case - they were told they were being sent into Russia) by Soviets she wouldn't find out she was being kept somewhere in the USSR? You are in la la land.

Spare me the condescension, bombsaway. You’re the one in la-la land assuming every liberated Jew gets a geography lesson from their Soviet “saviors.” Even if some were “told” they’re being sent to Russia (which is generally not true; many reports from Jews in ghettos indicating their expected destinations were vague, e.g. 'going to work in the East') this means jack, in any case -- most were disoriented, shuffled through sealed transports, and dumped in unfamiliar hellholes with no signage or context. Even post-liberation, Soviets aren’t handing out maps saying, “Welcome to Vyatka!” They’re controlling info, relocating people again, or just leaving them to fend for themselves in vast, war-torn territories. Esther likely knows she suffered, not where. Your belief in crystal-clear self-awareness among traumatized survivors is the delusion here. Try grounding your hypotheticals in the chaos of 1945, not some tidy textbook fantasy.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Wed May 14, 2025 5:05 pm

bombsaway wrote:The Soviet “Iron Curtain” can’t account for the silence inside Western-controlled sources that were never behind that curtain:

UNRRA / IRO case-files (Bad Arolsen, Germany, open since 1949)

Joint Distribution Committee emigration dossiers (New York, open since the 1970s)

Shoah Foundation interviews taken in Canada, the US, Australia, South Africa and Western Europe during the 1990s.
None of those repositories shows so much as a single liberated “German resettlement camp in Russia.” You need a mechanism that bridges both blocs, not one that stops at the Soviet border.

bombsaway, you're missing the forest for the trees. The Iron Curtain is a chokehold on information flow, especially in the immediate postwar chaos. UNRRA/IRON files and JDC dossiers rely heavily on what survivors reported or what Soviet authorities allowed to trickle out.

The majority of eyewitnesses were liberated, or arrested, by the Western Allies. The West had the majority of control over the narrative. West Germany dealt with the majority of death camp staff. Why would they cooperate with a Soviet generated hoax, during the Cold War?

...

bombsaway wrote:Precisely. Bundesentschädigung pensions and later Article-2 payments are public-record: ≈ 620 000 Jewish claimants since 1954. If another million Jews liberated from German camps lived on Soviet soil (or emigrated to Israel in the 1970s-90s), Claims Conference lawyers would be beating down their doors; the Conference’s entire raison d’être is to collect more names, not fewer. The compensation rolls stopped growing because no further pool of survivors materialized.

Wrong again. The Claims Conference isn’t some neutral truth-seeker “beating down doors” for every Jew. Their mission hinges on a specific victimhood narrative -- genocide, not resettlement. A million Jews on Soviet soil, if they existed,...

Interesting admission there. Can you expand on that? Do you admit you have no evidence of the Soviets liberating millions of Jews in 1945?

... are either dead, suppressed, or uninterested in claiming when it risks clashing with the established story. Plus, Soviet-era Jews emigrating in the ‘70s-’90s aren’t rushing to advertise wartime “resettlement” under Germans if it means bureaucratic scrutiny or social ostracism in Israel. Compensation rolls stopping isn’t proof no survivors exist; it’s proof the system prioritizes a certain type of survivor story. You’re blind to incentives.

How were millions of Jews, for whom you admit there is no evidence of their liberation, be persuaded, even if they left the SU, to not claim compensation, when they would see others getting compensation?

You have a hypothesis, but no evidence, which is normal for so-called revisionists.

Nessie wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 7:16 am Interesting admission there. Can you expand on that? Do you admit you have no evidence of the Soviets liberating millions of Jews in 1945?

The policy I recognize as true is one which is well-documented, indisputably authentic, and uses explicit language so no twisting of meaning (that is, evacuation as literal resettlement and not genocide). The candid, contemporary wartime diaries and decoded messages also fully align with my position, contradicting yours.

I don't even need to mention the physical evidence.

Oh, and logistics? You believe Germany not only coordinated the most extraordinary wood delivery campaign the world has seen, totally undocumented and attested to by zero witnesses, all the while during a logistical nightmare. Your forests aren't cleared, your deliveries didn't happen, and your graves are filled with burnt property (clothing, luggage, furniture, etc.), corpses of typhus victims, and occasional trinkets that your top archaeologists and investigators hold up to the camera to claim means 'Holocaust'.

Your position is weak, absurd, and definitely on its way out.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 8:15 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 7:16 am Interesting admission there. Can you expand on that? Do you admit you have no evidence of the Soviets liberating millions of Jews in 1945?

The policy I recognize as true is one which is well-documented, indisputably authentic, and uses explicit language so no twisting of meaning (that is, evacuation as literal resettlement and not genocide). The candid, contemporary wartime diaries and decoded messages also fully align with my position, contradicting yours.

Please show me the documents where Nazis refer to the resettlement of Jews and then explain the use of different terms. I am looking for the use of the words Umsiedlung, Umsiedeln or Umgesiedelt.

I don't even need to mention the physical evidence.

I would like to see physical evidence of millions of Jews in camps and ghettos, in the east, in 1944, since you say they were not being gassed or shot.

Oh, and logistics? You believe Germany not only coordinated the most extraordinary wood delivery campaign the world has seen, totally undocumented and attested to by zero witnesses, all the while during a logistical nightmare. Your forests aren't cleared, your deliveries didn't happen, and your graves are filled with burnt property (clothing, luggage, furniture, etc.), corpses of typhus victims, and occasional trinkets that your top archaeologists and investigators hold up to the camera to claim means 'Holocaust'.

Your position is weak, absurd, and definitely on its way out.

Testimony about ordering wood and getting it delivered to Sobibor here;

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... speak.html

"I went to Sobibor together with Lorenz Hackenholt, who was at that time in Treblinka. First of all, I went with Hackenholt to a sawmill near Warsaw. There Hackenholt ordered a big consignment of wood for reconstruction in Sobibor."

You overestimate, contradicting eyewitnesses, how much wood was needed for the pyres. You underestimate how much evidence archaeologists have found at the camps.

How did the Nazis coordinate the accommodation of millions of Jews, in 1944-5, without leaving any evidence?

Callafangers wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 8:15 am
Oh, and logistics? You believe Germany not only coordinated the most extraordinary wood delivery campaign the world has seen, totally undocumented and attested to by zero witnesses, all the while during a logistical nightmare. Your forests aren't cleared, your deliveries didn't happen, and your graves are filled with burnt property (clothing, luggage, furniture, etc.), corpses of typhus victims, and occasional trinkets that your top archaeologists and investigators hold up to the camera to claim means 'Holocaust'.

Who would have to be “in on” (or at least smell) the conspiracy as described by Callafangers?
Below is every group he explicitly names, with the lines in which he invokes them. By the time you list them all you are deep into six-figure head-counts—far beyond the very tight, centralised circle that actually ran Aktion Reinhard.

1 Mass-media & gate-keeping institutions

• []“publishers in Israel or Jewish-heavy Western circles self-select against narratives that clash with the sacrosanct Holocaust story” – [Wed 14 May 03:47]
• Acquisitions editors, vanity-press staff, Amazon/Lulu moderators (implied in his “weed out” discussion).

2 Academic & reference world

• []“complacent academia” – [Wed 14 May 01:27]
  []Yad Vashem historians, Shoah-Foundation cataloguers as active filters – [several posts].

3 Centralised Jewish organisations

• []“World Jewish Congress or early Zionist groups … funding, distribution, editorial guidance” of Yizkor books – [Wed 14 May 01:05]
  []Claims Conference lawyers driven by a “specific victimhood narrative” – [Wed 14 May 03:47]
  []Yad Vashem, Yizkor editorial committees, “wide-reaching post-war Jewish organisations” curating memory – [Wed 14 May 02:41]
  []A network of sayanim who can lean on outlets – [earlier rounds with Stubble].

4 State actors with “overlapping motives”

• []Soviet Union: NKVD, Glavlit, archive bosses suppressing any east-camp paperwork – [repeated]
  []Western Allies who “had zero incentive to dig for resettled stories that muddy the waters” – [Wed 14 May 01:05]
• Post-war West Germany allegedly going along during the Cold War – [implied reply to Nessie].

5 Demographic-data managers

• []UNRRA / IRO clerks, Arolsen archivists, JDC case-workers – he concedes these must be relying on “what the Soviets allowed to trickle out”.
  []Shoah-Foundation field teams “curating” survivor picks.

6 Peripheral “helpers”

• []“Advertisers or board members” who can kill awkward media pieces (mentioned earlier in the thread when he down-played the need for them).
  []Compensation administrators who must ignore a million extra claimants.

Result: publishers + editors + scholars + NGO staff + lawyers + archivists + Cold-War intelligence liaisons + Soviet police = easily 40 000-50 000 fully informed actors, with tens of thousands more who would smell that something big is being withheld.

This is not even getting into the containment measures required to ensure silence on the part of the accused perpetrators. None, even on their deathbed, even to their families and children, admitted that they had been forced to lie. This is in West Germany mostly, which means the government there has to know.

In contrast to this the decision circuit for Reinhardt was Himmler ↔ Globocnik ↔ Wirth; about 120 T4 veterans already trained in secrecy + the personnel of the camps (who ended up admitting everything), concealment measures were in place from the get go, we have a document attesting to the destruction of all records associated with Reinhardt, and I could go on, but don't have the time now

bombsaway wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 5:59 pm [...]

Not only are some of those quotes actually Stubble's and not mine, your notion is totally baseless. Centralized direction of organization and initiatives prevents the overwhelming majority of players from necessarily knowing the bigger picture. I've discussed this in the past with the Manhattan Project as an example. The people coordinating programs (or prompting/accumulating testimony, or delegating tasks, etc.) do not need to inform anyone else not directly involved in that coordination of what the broader motivations are, or what has been omitted, etc.

You're really grasping here, bombsaway.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 6:55 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Thu May 15, 2025 5:59 pm [...]

Not only are some of those quotes actually Stubble's and not mine, your notion is totally baseless. Centralized direction of organization and initiatives prevents the overwhelming majority of players from necessarily knowing the bigger picture. I've discussed this in the past with the Manhattan Project as an example. The people coordinating programs (or prompting/accumulating testimony, or delegating tasks, etc.) do not need to inform anyone else not directly involved in that coordination of what the broader motivations are, or what has been omitted, etc.

You're really grasping here, bombsaway.

I'm not that interested in your proclamations, I think you could convince yourself that the Nazis transported the Jews into Turkey if you wanted to.

Anyway, in Goebbels diary he wrote:

“The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.”

The Korherr report has the Polish Jewish population dropping by close to 80%.

Of the surviving ghetto inhabitants, we can say probably 60-80% were also survivors of resettlement.

viewtopic.php?p=9114#p9114

referencing this post, if there were 200,000 ghetto testimonies that don't reflect there should be, under normal conditions we could expect 600-800,000 ones that do. These people were silenced, at least relatively. The number zero is quite important, it necessitates multiple layers or levels of containment. According to you, people were being told to amplify testimonies about the ghettos, but any testimony regarding resettlement is not permissible. What's the explanation for this? In wartime I might understand not being allowed to question things, but people are going to get upset about their work and accounts not being recognized and demand explanation. What's a plausible explanation that could be given to them?